By overthrowing rational psychology in his
`Critique of Pure Reason', Kant has disproved the very existence
of the soul and thereby the doctrines of the immortality and
simplicity of it. But what he lost in the `Critique of Pure
Reason', he regained them in the `Critique of Practical Reason'.
Lord Mahavira presenting the Purva-paksa in the Visesavasyaka
bhasya comes to the conclusion that the soul does not exist, but
in the Uttar-paksa, refutes all the arguments of the opponents
and successfully establishes the existence of the soul. Eminent
psychologists of today have been finding themselves helpless to
do away with the hypothesis of the soul. "Modern man (is
also) in the search of a soul." "The reality of self is
obvious to the Introspectionist as the reality of the organism is
to the Behaviorists." James supports it and his pupils,
Calkins comes out strongly for a `psychology of selves'. Stern,
Dilthy, Spranger and Allport have been endeavoring to build up a
`science of personality'. The theory of soul holds that the
principle of consciousness must be a substantial entity, psychic
phenomena are activities and the activity is possible unless
there exists an agent. Therefore William James regards its
admittance `to be the line of least logical resistance'. Calkins
holds that the self, far from being a metaphysical concept, is an
ever present fact of immediate experience and fully worthy to be
made the central fact in a scientific psychology. Huxley, Spencer
and even Darwin have likewise admitted that the materialistic
hypothesis involves grave philosophical errors.

In fact, nothing would be simpler than to start
with sensation, which is as simple as simplicity, hence it is
bound to be indivisible affection which does not imply a
reflection even. Naturally, the subject of such sensations must
then be a simple substances. "The ancients employed the term
`should' to indicate their conceptions of a knowing substance
that was partless and indestructible and therefore
immortal." Words abound with references to the arguments for
the existence of soul. It is due to the soul that a body appears
to be living, the soul itself being the principle of
consciousness. Udyotkara, the famous author of Nyaya-Varttika,
therefore observes that there is practically no un-unanimity
regarding the existence of soul.

Soul : Its Characteristics

Indian philosophers are agreed about the nature
of the soul as possessing consciousness. Even the Carvakas regard
Atman as Consciousness, which is a byproduct of the material
body. The Buddhists also accept this position, with little
difference. However, Jainism is very emphatic about the
characteristic of soul as consciousness, which consists of jnana
and darsana (knowledge and intuition). In the Tattvartha-Sutra,
the term for Cetana is given as Upayoga which includes bliss and
power besides cognition and intuition. So very Jiva, in its
natural condition possesses `four-infinities'.

Karma : The Material Basis of Bondage

So infinite cognition, intuition, bliss and
power belong to the soul in state of perfection. But the mundane
souls are infected by something foreign, which obscures their
natural faculties. This foreign elements is known as Karman. The
Jaina conception of Karman is not `action' or `deed' as it
etymologically means; it is an aggregate of very fine
imperceptible material particles. This Doctrine of the Material
Nature of Karman is singular to Jainism alone; with others karma
is formless. The Jainas regard karma as the crystallized effect
of the past activities or energies. But they argue that "in
order to act and react and thereby to produce changes in things
on which they work, the energies must have to be metamorphosed
into forms or centers of forces." Like begets like. The
cause is like the effect. "The effect (i.e. body) is
physical, hence the cause (i.e. Karma) has indeed a physical
form." But unless Karma is associated with the soul, it
cannot produce any effect, because karma is only the instrumental
cause and it is the soul which is the essential cause of all
experiences. Hence the Jainas believe in the Doctrine of Soul as
the Possessor of Material Karma. But why the conscious soul
should be associated with the unconscious matter ? It is owing to
the karma, which is a substantive force or matter in a subtle
form, which fills all cosmic space. "The soul by its
commerce with the outer world becomes literally penetrated with
the particles of subtle-matter." Moreover, the mundane soul
is not absolutely formless, because the Jainas believe in the
Doctrine of Extended consciousness, like the Doctrine of Pudgala
in Buddhism and the Upanisads and also to some extent in Plato
and Alexander. While the Samkhya-Yoga, Vedanta, Nyaya-Vaisesikas
and the Buddhists kept consciousness quite aloof from matter, the
Jainas could easily conceive of the inter-influencing of the soul
and the Karmic-matter, hence the relation between the soul and
Karma became very easy. The Karmic matter mixes with the soul as
milk mixes with the water or fire with iron. Thus the amurta
karma is affected by murta karma as consciousness is affected by
drink and medicine. This is the relation of concrete identity
between the soul and the Karma.

Without the Karma Phenomenology, the diversity
of the variegated nature and apparent inequalities among human
beings and their capacities remain unexplained. Kalavada
(Temporalism), Svabhavavada (Naturalism), Niyativada
(Determinism), Yadrcchavada (Fortuism), Ajnanavada and
Samsaya-vada (Agnosticism and Scepticism), Bhautikavada
(Materialism) and Maya-vada (Illusionism) fail to satisfy us.
Karma is the basis of Jaina psychology and the key-stone
supporting edifice of the Jaina ethics.

The Concept of Nescience

The link between the spirit and the matter is
found in the Doctrine of the Subtle Body (Karma-Sarira or
Linga-Sarira), a resultant of the unseen potency and caused by a
Principle of Susceptibility due to Passions and Vibrations. The
Doctrines of Constitutional Freedom of the soul and its Potential
Four-fold Infinities means that the Soul is intrinsically pure
and innately perfect. It is due to Karma that it acquires the
conditions of nescience. Nescience is opposite to science or
knowledge, i.e., deluded and misguided. This Ignorance or
Nescience is the "force which prevents wisdom shining from
within, that is that which holds it in latency." The
relation between the soul and the non-soul is beginningless and
is due to nescience or avidya, otherwise called Mithyatva,
Ajnana, Mithya-Jnana, Viparyaya, Moha, Darsana-moha, Aviveka,
Mala and Pasa etc. in different schools of Indian Philosophy.
They are responsible for the worldly existence, or bondage, which
is determined by the nature (Prakrti), duration (Sthiti),
intensity (Anubhava) and quantity (Pradesa) of karmas. Jivas take
matter in accordance with their own karmas because of
self-possession (Kasaya). This is known as bondages, the cause of
which are Delusion (Mithya-drsti). Lack of Control (Avirati),
Inadvertence (Pramada), Passions (Kasaya) and
Vibrational-activities (Yoga).

The Jaina term for avidya is mithyatva, which
is divided into categories and sub-categories differently.
According to Umaswami, it may be divided into abhigrahita and
anabhigrahita; according to Pujyapada Devanandi it may be divided
into Naisargika and Paropdesapurvaka, the last again sub-divided
into four sub-classes. According to Kunda-Kunda delusion (moha)
may be divided into Mithyatva, ajnana and avirati, according to
the Fourth Karma Grantha, mithya-darsana is divided into -
abhigrahika, anabhigrahika, abhinivesika, samasvaika and
anabhoga. However, the most popular division is of Pujyapada -
ekanta, viparita, vainayika, samsaya and ajnana with their
numerous sub-division. The five-fold causes of bondage is
sometimes reduced to two or three (mithya-darsana, kasaya and
yoga or simply kasaya and yoga) or four. In short, nescience or
mithyatva is at the root of all evils and the cause of worldly
existence. The Jainas do not like to bother about its whence and
why. It is coeval with the soul, hence eternal and beginningless.
Both the questions of the Self and Nescience are accepted as
facts on the basis of uncontradicted experience. As the bondage
is determined by the karmas. There are eight fundamental
varieties of these karmas, i.e., jnanavaraniya, darsanavaraniya,
vedaniya, mohaniya, ayu, nama, gotra and antaraya with their
different sub-divisions. Vidyananda Swami in his
Tattvartha-Sloka-Varttika says that as Right Attitude, Right
Knowledge and Right Conduct constitute the path to liberation,
the anti-thesis of this Trinity, i.e., Wrong Attitude, Wrong
Knowledge and Wrong Conduct must lead to the bondage. If the very
outlook is wrong, one cannot expect right knowledge and there
cannot be right conduct without right knowledge. There is close
relation between knowledge. Theory without practice is useless as
practice without theory is blind. Knowledge enlightens, penances
purifies and restraint protects. Even after attaining
tattva-jnana, the soul remains embodied for sometime to enjoy the
fruits of its past sancit karmas. So on the psychological
grounds, the Jainas reject the metaphysical position of all those
who subscribe to the Doctrine of Unitary principle (i.e., Wrong
knowledge alone) as the cause of the bondage.

The Concept of Omniscience

Definition and Analysis - Omniscience or
Keval-Jnana is a kind of direct but extra-sensory perception,
"the perfect manifestation of the innate nature of the self,
arising on the complete annihilation of the obstructive
veils." which is gained by the destruction of Deluding,
Knowledge obscuring, Belief obscuring and Obstructive Karmas,
when the soul is free from all karmic-matter owing to the
non-existence of the causes of bondage and to the shedding of all
karmas, the subject-matter of which is all the substances in all
their modifications at all the places and in all the times.
Nothing remains unknown to the omniscient.

On analysis of the concept of omniscience, we
have to decide whether he is human or divine or both; whether the
knowledge of an omniscient is simultaneous or successive; whether
the power of omniscience is potential or actual; whether an
omniscient knows all the objects or simply the most important
objects, and whether he knows the past and the future as the
present or as the past or future. To the Mimamsakas the term
omniscient may either mean (1) the knower of the term
`omniscience' or (2) complete knowledge of one thing such as oil
or (3) knowledge of the entire world in a most general way or (4)
perfect knowledge of one's own respective scriptural matters or
(5) simply knowledge of respective things through the respective
Pramanas as far as possible.

Historical Development and Comparative
Estimate of the Concept of Sarvajnatva

The germinal concept of omniscience can be
traced back to the Vedas where Varuna sits looking at all. In the
Upanisads, the state of omniscience is the state of bliss or
Turiyavastha. He who knows Brahman, knows everything. Atman being
known everything is known. Hiranyagarbha is Sarvajna. Likewise in
the Vedanta, the Brahman alone, who is one without a second, is
omniscient. In Buddhism, omniscience is granted to the Buddha.
True to their non-metaphysical attitude, they do not bother about
each and everything, but only about their Four Noble Truths, and
their own religious observances etc. Prajnakargupta in his
commentary on Dharamkirti's work has established the
trio-temporal-spatial omniscience of Sugat and that state is
attainable by any man free from attachment and taints.
Santaraksita supports this. In idealistic schools of Buddhism
like Sunyavada and Vijnanavada, the Concept of omniscience comes
very near to that Upanisadic monism where all-knowledge amounts
to self-knowledge. However to the Buddhists, who subscribe to the
Doctrine of Momentary Stream of Consciousness, the fact of
omniscience, extending to past and future becomes meaningless.
The creating Isvara of Nyaya school is omniscience. Vaisesika
regards God as omniscient besides other Yogic-souls. Similarly,
Alaukika Pratyaksa of the Nyaya school, Asamprajnata Samadhi of
the Yoga, Jivan-Mukti of Samkhya and Vedanta Turiyavastha of the
Upanisads and Radhakrishnan's Religious Experience have very
clear implications of omniscience, although they partly encroach
on the realm of religious mysticism. According to the
Nyaya-Vaisesika, omniscience means knowledge of its seven
principles, to the Buddhists, it implies the right knowledge of
Panca-skandhas, to the Vedantins it is the knowledge of the
Brahman and to the Jainas it will mean the all
comprehensive-knowledge of the six categories. Excepting the
Mimamsakas and the Carvakas all Indian systems believe in the
possibility of human omniscience, however, the Sramanic culture
insistence on human omniscience more than others to grant
infalliability to their prophets, because on this depend the very
life and death of their systems.

In short, the Doctrine of Omniscience follows
as the sine qua non from the metaphysical, religious and
psychological view-points of each of the school. True to their
realistic metaphysics, the Jainas conceive of omniscience as
purely human and actual - a direct knowledge of all knowable of
all places and times. The Agamas and the logical treaties have
equated Sarvajnatva with Dharmajnatva. Later Jaina thinkers like
Samantabhadra, Siddhasena, Akalanka, Haribhadra, Vidyanand have
separated the concept of omniscience from the idea of religious
experience. With Acarya Kunda-kunda Sarvajnatva is a dogma, a
religious heritage, almost similar to the Advaitic and Upanisadic
emphasis on treating Sarvajnatva as Atmajnatva. The names of
other Jaina thinkers such as Umasvami, Anantakirti, Patrakesar,
Prabhachandra, Abhayadeva Suri, Rajasekhara, Vadibh Singh Suri,
Anantakirti, Manikyanandi, Pujyapada Devanandi, Santi Suri,
Yasovijaya, Mallavadin, Vadi Deva Suri, Nemichandra, Hemchandra,
Mallisena, Dharmabhusana , Devendra Suri, etc. are relevant.

Mimamsaka's Objections and Their Replies

The Mimamsakas try to show that omniscience
cannot be established through any of the Pramanas. It cannot be
established through Pratyaksa. Perception implies
sense-object-contact during the present time and in the case of
Kevala-jnana, this is lacking. To this, we can say that the
question of sense-object-relation is not always valid, because
things are beyond the power of senses. Such invisible things like
atoms, things or persons remote in time or things far beyond
(like the Meru hill) became known as the object of direct
perception, just like the knowledge of existence of fire in hill
from the smoke is also the subject-matter of perception. Here we
may be reminded of the researches in para-psychology and
extra-sensory perception including telepathy and clairvoyance. As
for perception, we can say that only a type of perception which
claims to know all things of all times and places, can definitely
say that omniscient does not exist. But if there is such a type
of all-comprehensive perception it is no other than the
omniscience. Similarly, omniscience cannot be established through
Anumana, because we cannot think of a relation of universal
concomitance between the Sadhya and the Hetu. Sabda Pramana also
cannot prove it, because there is no infallibility of the Agamic
authority to support it and the fallible Agamas are either
created by omniscient or non-omniscient. Now, if it is through
omniscient, there is the fallacy of circular reasoning and if it
is through non-omniscient, there is fallacy of Contradiction.
Upamana also cannot establish this, because it works on the basis
of imperfect resemblance between two instances, but there is
complete absence of any similarly with the objection that the
Arhat is not omniscient because he is speaker like some vagabond,
it is said "there is no contradiction between the
speakership and the omniscience. With the perfection of
knowledge, verbal skill is also perfected. However it may be
retorted that Vitaraga Omniscience can not speak for speech is
related with desire to speak, and a Vitaraga Omniscient is devoid
of any desires. But as a matter of fact, this argument is
fallacious. There is no relation between the two. An intelligent
person even if he has desire, may not explain the Sastras and
during swoon and dreams, where there is absence of desires,
people are seen talking and uttering something. Similarly, when
it is said that the proof of the omniscience follows from the
final consummation of the progressive development of cognition,
the Mimamasakas object to it and say that there must be a limit
of all progress like that in any human activity. The Jainas reply
that physical progress is different from mental progress.
Knowledge is limitless and infinite. When the soul shines in full
splendor it attains omniscience. To the objection that if an
omniscient knows all the objects of the universe at one instant,
nothing remains to be cognised by him in the next moment, hence
the soul would turn to be unconscious having nothing to cognise;
it is reported that it would have been so only if the perception
of the omniscient and also this world-order were destroyed in the
following moment. But both of them are eternal. Hence it is
foolish to hold that there is one single cognition. With respect
to the objection that because the omniscient knows `everything',
he might be tainted by the evils contained in them, it is replied
that knowledge is different from active participation. One cannot
be subjected to attachment and miseries simply in knowing them,
because we cannot be called a drunker simply as we know about the
different ingredients of the drink. Next, it is objected that we
cannot think of an omniscient because through the world we find
only ignorant persons. To this it is said that our ignorance
cannot be our excuse. We cannot say that persons like Jamini etc.
were ignorant of the Vedas because we do not find any such person
at the present time. When it is argued that since the
beginninglessness and endlessness are apparent in the state of
omniscience, things must appear in that way, it is replied that
the nature of reality does not change in perceiving them. Things
appear as they are. When it is said that because the Agamas
establish omniscience of the Arhat and omniscients also create
Agamas, this is simply paradoxical, it is said that the Agamas of
the present are profited by the past Agamas. The Mimamsakas say
that omniscience may mean either successive or simultaneous
knowledge of all objects. Now, if it is regarded as successive
knowledge, omniscience becomes impossible since the objects of
the world in the past, present and future are inexhaustible,
hence the knowledge would also be ever-complete. If the knowledge
is regarded as simultaneous, there will be confusion and
contradiction due to the presence of contradictory objects at the
same time. Past and future are non-existent at the present time,
hence a knowledge about them would always be illusory.

Some Proofs for the Existence of Omniscience

We have to face these difficulties because we
regard omniscience only as ordinary perception writ large. As a
matter of fact omniscience is a form of direct simultaneous
extra-sensory-perception where there is no scope for CONFUSION,
ILLUSION or IGNORANCE. "Our phenomenal knowledge suggests
the noumenal as a necessity of thought, but not known through the
empirical Pramanas. Metaphysically, manifold and complete
objectivity implies some extra-ordinary perception.
Psychologically, differences in intelligence etc. in human beings
presuppose the possibility of omniscience, somewhere and in some
body. Logically, on account of the lack of contradictory proof,
it is established beyond doubt. According to the researches made
by Sukhalal Sanghavi, the origin of all these proofs may by
traced back to the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali. Knowledge like
measure and quantity has got degrees, hence knowledge is bound to
reach its final consummation. References about omniscience, in
all other literatures, are after the date of the Yoga-Sutra. In
Jaina literatures, this argument was first of all advocated by
Mallavadi, though the sources concerned are not exactly clear.

We can sum up the most formidable proofs of
Akalanka Deva under the following three categories - firstly,
omniscience is proved because there is absolute non-existence of
any obstructive-Pramanas against it. Akalanka tries to in the
astronomical spheres, which indicates correctly about the future
eclipses of the sun and moon. Lastly, omniscience follows from
the essential nature of the soul as knower of all things. As the
sun shines fully after the removal of the clouds, so the self
knows everything when the knowledge-obscuring-karmas is
completely liquidated. According to Virasena Svami, we can infer
about the whole mountain after perceiving a part of it, so we can
be sure of complete knowledge in self by perceiving partial
knowledge. Samantabhadra has proved the existence through the
reasoning based on Anumeyatva, or capable of being known through
inference. Dharmabhusana explaining this says that `perception'
does not mean only `actual perception' but also `object of
knowledge'. Let us repeat with the author of Apta-Pariksa,
"when omniscience is proved by all the six Pramanas, who
dare to reject it ?" None, perhaps none. Omniscience is
perfectly consistent with the Jaina conception of knowledge as
the removal of veil.